The First Century World-View and Leadership: Divine Gifts of the Last Days and Leadership Among a Community of Believers

By Timothy J. Glover

Church leadership is the product of early Christians desiring to establish continuity with the past and authority to support their leadership role. This, in turn, produced the church institution which is represented in both Catholicism and her protestant children. The Bible becomes their proof-t

• Language: English
• Publisher: URLink Print & Media, LLC
• Release date: Apr 10, 2023
• ISBN: 9781684864225

Timothy J. Glover

Timothy Glover has a M.A in Religious Studies from Missouri State University and thirty years experience writing and preaching for the Churches of Christ. He presently teaches each week on a local radio station, writes blogs on his personal web page, and is director of a county food bank in Tennessee.

Book preview

THE FIRST CENTURY

WORLD-VIEW & LEADERSHIP

Divine Gifts of the Last Days and Leadership Among a Community of Believers

TIMOTHY J. GLOVER

The First Century World-View& Leadership

Copyright © 2023 by Timothy J. Glover. All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any way by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the author except as provided by USA copyright law.

The opinions expressed by the author are not necessarily those of URLink Print and Media.

1603 Capitol Ave., Suite 310 Cheyenne, Wyoming USA 82001

1-888-980-6523 | [e-mail]

URLink Print and Media is committed to excellence in the publishing industry.

Book design copyright © 2023 by URLink Print and Media. All rights reserved.

Published in the United States of America

Library of Congress Control Number: 2023906149

ISBN 978-1-68486-421-8 (Paperback)

ISBN 978-1-68486-422-5 (Digital)

30.03.23

Contents

Preface

Introduction: Methodological Questions

Section One: Church Leadership

Chapter 1: Concept of Church vs. The Called Out

Chapter 2: Popular Views of Church Leadership

Section Two: Context & Historical Setting of Biblical Leadership

Chapter 3: Time Statements of the New Testament

Chapter 4: The Age of the Holy Spirit & Miraculous Powers

Chapter 5: The Second Coming of Christ

Section Three: Textual Study Of The Ephesian Letter–A Validation

Chapter 6: Holy Spirit & Ephesians 1:1-4:10

Chapter 7: Ephesians 4:11-16 & Gifts Given the Ekklesia

Section Four: The Age Of Fulfillment

Chapter 8: The Duration of the Gifts

Chapter 9: The Fulfillment of the Spirit’s Outpouring in the Last Days

Chapter 10: The Second Coming of Christ

Chapter 11: The Day of the Lord

Section Five: God’s People Today

Chapter 12: The Work of Today’s Saints Without Local Churches or its Leaders

Bibliography

Preface

This book is a sequel to A Community of Believers, which was the first attempt to introduce the institutional nature of churches in bold contrast to the called-out class of people that we have referenced by the Greek word, ekklesia. In other words, they present two different thoughts, and the word church used to translate ekklesia is not an accurate translation but supports the institutional view held by King James of England. This current project was originally a part of the first book because bishops and pastors, or similar leadership, are officials in the church institution. For this reason, I would advise the reader to refer back to the material in the first book for a better foundation.¹ The title of the previous work is neither focused on peculiar doctrines of certain denominations nor an expose of faith and works or the rejection of baptism unto the remission of sins.

When I began this study twenty years ago, I found myself between two extremes. On the one hand, few scholarly studies valued the teaching of the Scriptures as inspired and relevant to our time, especially the pastoral epistles. On the other hand, the professed Christians who did accept the inerrant inspiration of the Scriptures misapplied the historical setting of the first century biblical letters and carried over many practices that are no longer applicable. Since a renewed interest in Pauline texts has created more questions and investigative work over the last fifteen years, it seemed a good time to share my studies with the public scholarship. The advantage of this study is that I have no affiliation with any denomination to support it. I have no dogma or policy to defend. I have the privilege of sharing these views without such influence or prejudice. It has been liberating and extremely rewarding to present a response to the text in the following pages that allows the Scriptures and the unique context they were framed to speak for themselves.

As we know it today, Church leadership is different from first-century leadership. The difference between the two periods is expected because the first century included the end of one age and the start of a new one. The leadership was never meant to be duplicated beyond that period. Yet, because Christians are looking to find relevance to every passage, they easily apply some first-century practices to a time with different circumstances.

To give some semblance of continuity, religious devotees have taken different approaches to leadership to follow the Bible. We can divide church leadership into three broad models: the Catholic, charismatic, and general clerical training and education. Each has its unique appearance and characteristics, but they have some common elements.

The Catholic model claims the ongoing influence of the Spirit to guide the church (the organization). The leaders take on the role of the Old Testament priests. The appearance of this model does not look like a charismatic church where the Spirit indwells the Christian. This institutional view is also accurate to protestant churches that branched out from the Catholic church. Whether a priesthood or a protestant clergyman, these men or women are expected to have more knowledge and answers than the members and control the spiritual direction of that organization. They all recognize this class among Christians who are qualified professionals in biblical studies. The membership is conditioned to heed their teaching and follow their instruction because of their special training. This fact is especially significant in past generations when the ordinary/laity distinction was a simple distinction between the educated and uneducated. Anyone seeking to know God depended on the educated to read, interpret, and communicate it for them.

The Charismatic model promotes the ongoing miraculous work of the Holy Spirit to testify of God’s work among us today. Leaders in this model claim the same miraculous power of the Spirit enjoyed by the early disciples of the first century. This view of leadership borrows from the five-fold ministry of Ephesians 4:11 and spiritual gifts. The idea proposes that today’s Christian has the Holy Spirit as first-century Christians did.

Finally, the clerical training and education model supports the view that church leaders need instruction from a seminary or equivalent education to qualify for this ministry. They are prepared without the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Today, the distinction still exists between the common and holy, but not as a result of general education but on the perception that they have received a divine calling that qualifies them for the profession or that one must be trained in that field to be prepared in it. In other words, like any field of work, the area of religion has educated professionals that qualify them for leadership. While this expectation is seldom questioned, the biblical support is taken from a specific context of leadership during a time of the Spirit’s outpouring. Today, all one must do is either claim the same gift of the Holy Spirit that guided the administration then or adhere to professionalism in the churches that recognize only the trained and educated in their tradition to take on the leadership role.

The primary fault that fuels both views is the institutional view that replaces the ekklesia for the word church that supports these professional clergymen. The church concept and the use of the word church is an institutional view that is distinctly different than the called out body of the redeemed. Practically, the term church is used today to refer to both the people and the institution. Teachers from all disciplines know that it translates into ekklesia and must refer to people. Yet, in conversation and literature, it is widely used of the institution that distinguishes the people from the organization. The people can join it, attend it, and be blessed without being defined by it. The Sunday School teacher has the children close their hands with their fingers interlocked and say, here’s the church, here’s the steeple, open the door and see all the people. In that case, the people are not the church; they are only in the church, i.e., the building.

Once we assume the ekklesia is an institution/organization, it is inevitable that we also accept the need for authority and order in that institution. Most all Biblical commentators recognize this given set of rules. This division of labor is appropriate for institutions, not the ekklesia. The US Army recognizes colonels, captains, lieutenants, corporals, and privates. School districts recognize this division of labor, also. But, the Scriptures do not teach this leadership model. Our task is to describe and define the kind of leadership found therein. In accomplishing this task, we will also discover the overall context of the New Testament Scriptures. It is not the purpose of this book to engage in previous literature compiled on this subject but to return to the original sources found in the New Testament text.

I want to thank my family and a handful of friends with whom I have explored this material. I want to thank my wife and deceased father-in-law for their support and partnership in this project.

Tracy City, TN 2022

Introduction

Methodological Questions

1. Introduction

This project seeks to focus attention on Paul’s teaching on leadership, though not ignoring a comparative analysis of other authors. This book describes biblical leadership under two renowned contexts—Spirit-guided men and spiritual gifts at the end of the Jewish age. The first part seeks to establish a first-century setting during an era of the miraculous that completes the entire scheme of redemption reaching a climactic fulfillment. Some terms used in this work must be defined to frame a written theology of Pauline leadership.

a. Church

Today’s leadership is unquestionably linked to collective churches. A universal rule of thought is that leadership is tied to churches. One cannot discuss leadership without that context.² Reading about New Testament leadership is typically referred to as church leadership. Andrew Clarke explains, Towards the end of the twentieth century, the designation ‘leadership’ became increasingly widespread in many churches as a collective term to describe the combined team of local church office-bearers, including the pastors, ministers, elders, deacons, or ‘leaders’ of other ministries. Significantly, however, the New Testament in general and Paul’s letters suggest that the earliest churches did not adopt such a generic term.³ Though Clarke’s observations are acknowledged, it is not apparent that he realizes that the reason for the lack of a generic term such as church leadership is the departure from both leadership paradigms of Jesus and Paul. The leadership among the church Fathers sought to restore and maintain the purity of doctrine and practice by merging the institutional structure into the called out body of people. For Clarke, it was a development from the early stages of leadership necessary in a changing world. Even though the administration applied to God’s people today describes a leadership model that Jesus specifically rejects for the apostles, it usually finds its support from the influence and teaching of the church fathers and was a necessary evolution for their world. It is presumptive to assume that the church Fathers continued the work passed on to them from Christ and the apostles. Even though Paul warns of leaders in his generation arising to draw disciples after them, we tend to glorify the work of the church fathers because they were closer to the time the apostles lived. While church history elevates them among leaders because of their proximity to Christ and His apostles, few would associate them with those whom Paul warned in Acts 20 that would draw away disciples after them. Promoting an institutional view of the church and a leadership model that fits it, accords with the influence of the church fathers rather than Christ and His apostles.

It isn’t easy to stand outside the box of our cultural conditioning and discuss this topic as Paul discusses it. After several years of practice, I still catch myself reverting to my childhood vocabulary. For this reason, I have published a revision of Community of Believers to correct some of those blunders. But I am appealing to the readers to mentally separate the church institution from the community of believers classified as the called-out (ekklesia). The institutional view of the church is an almost exclusive view that ties most professed Christians into the same divisive error—denominationalism. Even the independent, autonomous groups, are still influenced by the traditional view of the church structure. Each includes their names and unique explanations of Scripture used as proof-texts to support their doctrines. The idea of a local institution led by clergy who have more knowledge, answers, and control of the spiritual direction of that organization is a part of this model. Paul’s most used term is co-worker, demonstrating no positioning or rank but only equality.⁴ Clarke supports the possibility that the absence of the common leadership terminology expected of a church supports the view that the early church was, predominantly, a group of egalitarian communities, which had no use for contemporary, generic titles for leadership.⁵ Even if it can be shown that they were, Clarke does not espouse the idea that such needs to be followed today. He is so close to the same conclusions reached in this work but assumes the presence of a church organization that had meager beginnings but developed into the structure that exists today. Most of the scholars are wed to their affiliation with the church. This connection hinders us from perceiving the true identity of the called-out and is why this book was written.

If we assume the ekklesia is an institution/organization, then it is inevitable that we also accept the need for authority and order. Most all biblical commentators recognize this given set of rules. For example, Hobart explains, There must be an organization for this task if the church is to accomplish much. There cannot be any great efficiency in a mere congregation. No matter how well-meaning, a mob cannot do much but destroy things. It has no constructive force. A church of the best saints will do very little in any country unless there is a division of labor and some orderly arrangement of its activities. Those denominations that have failed to organize their forces have lost efficiency. For example, consider the friends who have the very essence of personal faith, but how feeble they are as a people! The Roman Catholic Church has very little of the personal faith, and yet by their organization what efficiency they have.⁶ Hobart’s take on the Catholic church is precisely what happens when we seek to establish our own system/organization. Ironically, it can be argued that all denominations share the same characteristic. The Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Baptists, Methodists, etc., all struggle with the same problem. However, the system produces a people who are driven more by their church ties than by Jesus. Generally, the more a church is organized, the less personal faith is seen in its members because the focus on individual responsibility is the measure of membership status and expectation. This doesn’t mean members of such organizations do not have personal faith.

If, on the other hand, the ekklesia were saints, brothers who not only had a spiritual connection in common but who lived in the same community, then the word ekklesia correctly defines people, whom God has set apart, called, or collected into one body across all boundaries of time and location (cf. Colossians 1:13). While it is true that a more significant opportunity exists between people living in the same area due to physical proximity, the relationship and responsibility to each other are no different when allowed to fulfill it at any time of the week. Paul, Timothy, Titus, Luke, and other saints moved from city-to-city teaching saints. Some had roots in a specific town, and family members added to their responsibilities. Still, wherever they were residing, regardless of the amount of time spent there, they met with other Christians as a member of the living body. Individual Christians living in the same town do not prove that a local church body was formed into an organization. The figure is not used in the Bible to describe a local church in its use today. The only distinguishing feature between brethren appears to be the different towns in which they lived. That town of saints can be characterized by the strength and weaknesses of most individual saints. Yet, nothing in the text suggests they had formed themselves into an organization and carried a corporate business model. Instead, they are the called out whether they live in one city or worldwide. Living in the same town does not change the meaning of the word. It only narrowly defines the same people living in the same city or region, providing the occasion and opportunity to teach, encourage, and warn daily.

We will explore the question of whether the fellowship and proximity of saints living in the same town are defined by their city residence or by their affiliation with a local church organization (cf. Titus 1:5, city; Acts 14:23, church). Suppose we propose a local authority of leaders for local church organizations based on references to the ekklesia living in specific cities. In that case, you could also support the regional jurisdiction of leaders based on references to the ekklesia residing in regions like Galatia. To have one is to have the other, and some denominational organizations have a hierarchal division of power divided by district, region, or state. Authority for one is authority for the other. In this author’s opinion, finding authority for either would be very difficult.

Furthermore, the word church has been used today to describe the physical coming together of a class of people. However, the ekklesia of Christ is not formed because of a physical gathering (cf. Heb. 13:24). It is the called out whether they are physically gathered in one place or not. God has gathered them into one body by the cross. In this sense, they are the called out (ekklesia). Their living in the same town may give more significant opportunity for joint activities together than others in another city. Still, the stranger and the residents are standing equally in the body. If we applied this scenario to a modern application, the stranger does not have local church membership and has limited use in a church service. In Paul’s day, neither the stranger nor the residents had membership in a local church or ties to its public services because such an organization was nonexistent. Paul and his fellow workers, Apollos, Pricilla, Aquilla, or Peter, could come to a town and merge with the saints of that community with greater ease because there was no ladder of authority or organizational structure that kept the visitors at bay and limited them in the fellowship.

Another influence supporting the church being an organization is basing its development on the synagogues. The multiple uses of the Greek word archon and its derivatives show that there were leading officials in the synagogues. Yet, to argue that the called-out (ekklesia) had its origin in the synagogues is an unproven assumption. There is no doubt that the synagogues and the Jewish patterns of worship influenced the church institution supported and propagated by Constantine. He attempted to attract Jewish traditions as he did all peoples to Christianity. The connection between the synagogue and the forms of worship in the church (the Catholic church) is too obvious. When we combine the efforts of the church fathers and Constantine, we understand that the church is a product of their work, not the work of Paul. So, if we are looking for the church, we could start with them and the influences at work in their lives. However, if we look for the called out body, we will have to go back to Christ and His apostles because a shift occurred from one to the other.

To reason that the Church Fathers or Constantine continued the path charted by Paul and other inspired writers because church services are comparable to the synagogues is a mistake. The leadership models are different, and Paul does not model his teaching on leadership from the synagogue practices. Paul’s participation in the synagogues is like today’s visiting preacher attending a church service. Neither are active members of the organization. Nowhere does he align himself as a member of the synagogue. Paul’s only motivation for attending their meetings is the occasion for teaching that is provided. He attended them as long as he had an opportunity to teach Jesus from the law. When that opportunity was cut off, he would focus on the Gentiles, even if the transition was in the same city.

The position taken in this book is that the use of the word ekklesia in the New Testament days only describes the called-out ones whose names are known and recorded by God. You can speak of these living in Palestine, Galatia, Achaia, Rome, and Ephesus, but you have not changed its use or meaning. For example, the ekklesia in Ephesus was the called-out ones who lived in the city of Ephesus. The formation of an organization in these towns is an unproven assumption that fits the modern church and the church leadership model. This conclusion does not eliminate the fellowship of fellow Christians. Instead, it accentuates their togetherness as a way of life wherein they share their lives in every way.

b. Leadership

Suppose one’s view of the church is an organization like the Synagogues. In that case, leadership is narrowly defined as individuals who oversee or superintend the organization, especially when they gather in one place. Clarke provides an excellent description of a local church when he explains, The dominant contemporary model for a local church is one whose principal meeting is as a unified congregation in a single location, and accordingly has a core leadership structure that is centralized and focused regarding the function and meeting of a single congregation.⁷ One can see in this the similarity in synagogue meetings of the Jews. Interestingly, the word archon is used to define Jewish rulers, imperial Rome (Romans 13:3), Christ’s rule (Romans 15:12), or demonic powers (1 Cor. 2:6-8, Eph. 2:2), but never used to describe the leadership among the brothers and sisters of the ekklesia. Paul uses the same word to describe spiritual powers (1 Corinthians 2:6-8, Ephesians 2:2).

Similarly, the Greek word hegemon is widely used to describe secular authorities, but not in the ekklesia of the Pauline literature. Hebrews 13:7,17,24 uses hegoumenos of leaders among God’s people, but it is unclear that Paul wrote the Hebrew letter. Another word describes civic leaders and has military origins (strategos), but it does not occur in the Pauline corpus. Space is dedicated elsewhere in the book in using the Greek words for leadership.

When Paul uses the Greek proistimi (leaders, Rom 12:8, 1 Thess. 5:12; 1 Tim. 3:4, 12; 5:17; Tit. 3:8, 14) and its associated noun (Rom. 16:2), he is describing those who lead through personal action. In other words, it defines those taking charge of their accountability and initiating all necessary steps of service. For example, proistimi is used for managing a household or giving aid or help (cf. RSV). While the King James Version has influenced most church leaders to think they need to rule something, the word is never used to depict rule, according to our modern vernacular.

Any effort to define these words will be largely influenced by our view of the ekklesia. Two different lenses give different perspectives concerning the leadership in the ekklesia and the church organization. We will show that the leadership in the church organization does not harmonize with the nature of leadership in the ekklesia as taught in the Scriptures.

Once the local church organization and the idea of a rule are eliminated, we are left with men leading an exemplary life for others to follow. This exact meaning is the thought expressed in the Scriptures. Paul illustrated this type of leadership in 1 Corinthians 11:1-2. It reads,

Be ye imitators of me, even as I am of Christ. Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you (cf. Phil. 4:9).

Others collaborate with Paul’s teaching. For example, Peter speaks of being an example and not lording it over the flock (1 Peter 5:2). Being lords describes lords of another’s faith because they control what others in their care believe and practice. Again, in a local church application and quoting from the King James Version, churches justify their leaders making all business decisions for the local church organization they rule.

Paul’s avoidance of authoritative terms of power supports the Lord’s teaching of Mathew 20:25-26, where Jesus corrects his disciples after they debate who would be the greatest among them. He says, You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It will not be so among you. He then proceeds to define true greatness by serving others.

c. Pauline Writings

Six letters attributed to Paul have been disputed, namely, Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, and the Pastoral Epistles. Some authors regard them as pseudonyms. However, much material concerning our study on leadership would leave a void and limit essential data in our research if we disregarded them. Furthermore, the evidence favoring them being pseudonymous is open to debate. For example, the household codes of Ephesians and Colossians support the very stance of leadership in that era that we find consistently represented in the Pauline corpus. Furthermore, the pastoral epistles may only show the advancement of God’s order regarding leadership in the first century. The order I speak of is that found in Ephesians 4:11-12. This passage presents an orderly list of divine workers given to God’s people to complete the unity of the faith. They are Apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors/teachers. While we have the apostles, Paul and Barnabas, ordaining elders in Acts 14:23, we have evangelists doing it in the Pastoral epistles. These epistles represent the specific work of evangelists that had not been immediately in full swing in the early writings or Luke’s Acts. Still, there is a remarkable consistency between what the apostles did in the early stages (Acts 14:23) and what the evangelists were told to do in the Pastoral epistles (Titus 1:5). Both selected men who would carry the ongoing work of shepherding souls. A majority have argued that the Pastoral epistles belong to another author at another time and represent a complete development of leadership than in earlier writings. However, we find a remarkable consistency between all thirteen letters representing the development of early leadership under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who was in the last days. Clarke recognizes this and gives adequate space to treat them in his book, A Pauline Theology of Church Leadership. He writes, I am not convinced that this chasm is quite as wide as is often argued, and consider there to be credible grounds for holding there to be sufficient continuity in perspective across the thirteen canonically Pauline letters to warrant a comparative study of them as a discrete group.⁸ Accepting Clarke’s opinion, we have not distinguished the letters questioned as to their authorship or inspiration and have accepted the canon of mainline translations.

d. The Promises of the Last Days

One constant distinction that adds a new dimension to the study of leadership is that the New Testament letters and epistles were framed inside the last days. One must understand the role of the last days and the events associated with that time to appreciate its value in the scheme of redemption and its application and relevance, if any, to our time.

As are all the writings of the New Testament, the Pauline epistles were set in the first century, which was a critical time in the history of redemption. We intend to show that those days fulfilled the prophets when reading these letters. These were the last days, but the essential question is: Of what days is it the last? On the one hand, if we propose that the Pauline corpus are first-century letters with a first-century application and fulfillment, this does not suggest that there are no applicable principles today. On the other hand, we must understand that these books were written to and by people living at that time. One Biblical argument often used to prove that the promises of Scripture are applicable today is that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. The passage quoted to support the view ignores that while he’s the same God, He does not operate in the same way he always had in past generations. Hebrews 1:1 reads, Long ago God spoke to the fathers by the prophets at different times and in different ways (Christian Standard Bible). God’s communication with Adam differed from his communication with the prophets. He was the same God, but he revealed his will in dreams and visions. The next verse reads, In these last days, he has spoken to us by his Son. So, to argue that God is the same God does not prove that he dealt with man in every generation in the same way.

Method

Outside the standard methods of interpreting data from social and historical contexts, we will see that the pivotal distinction, adding a new dimension to the study of leadership, is that the New Testament letters and epistles were framed within those last days. The contextual method is imperative to understanding and applying principles of leadership today. If we are living in the last days, then we would expect the miraculous power of the Holy Spirit and anticipate the coming of Christ. If the last days have come and gone, is it not reasonable to think that our understanding of the Holy Spirit’s scope of work and the nature of Christ’s coming need re-evaluating? The text, especially the Pauline corpus, is the relevant data in determining the duration and particular order of leadership proposed by Paul. It is universally assumed that Ignatius and other early church fathers continued the same consistent teaching of Paul that evolved into a divine work of perfection. This expectation of continuity from the early days of the apostles and the church fathers has led to the doctrine of succession by Catholics or divine guidance by other mainstream denominations. A careful study of the context, especially the identification of the last days, and the bold contrast between the theology of leadership and the practice of second-century leadership suggests a break in continuity. This will be explored in this book.

a. Peculiar Problems and Conditions of Various Locations

One of the most rewarding but simple hermeneutic is that we are reading other people’s mail at a different time and culture. Good hermeneutics requires acknowledging that these letters did not just fall out of heaven for us today. Some principles are applicable, but most of what was promised has been fulfilled and completed in the New Testament era. In addition, reconstructing Paul’s view of leadership cannot be ascertained by reading a specific section that offers his thesis on leadership. Instead, we find bits and pieces from different contexts and conditions. For example, the conditions in Corinth differed from those in Antioch of Syria. Brethren in that city either had no man of wisdom or did not appeal to such a man if one existed (1 Cor. 6:5, 3:1-4). Due to the repeated problems, evidence of carnality, and immaturity, there is no mention of elders/shepherds in Corinth. Instead of supporting a different and inconsistent pattern of leadership, the context supports the view that no one was qualified for such a task in Corinth (cf. 1 Timothy 3:1-ff). Even in the presence of many spiritual gifts, they were too immature to use them properly. However, Paul’s letters to them indicate his purpose to guide them to greater maturity.

Since the general setting was in the last days of the Jewish nation, it is incumbent that we recognize other events associated with those days. For example, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the harvest or judgment, the reign of Christ in His kingdom, and the resurrection are all tied to the same period.

One of the elements associated with the last days would be the hardships and persecutions at the hand of the Jews. In this setting, Paul encourages Christians in Corinth not to marry. This advice was not a command for leaders to lead a celibate life in the generations to come but was to avoid troubles in caring for a family in the present distress. When such scenarios are repeated, we can apply the same principle. But, ignoring the context can lead to incorrect interpretations and practices like the rule of celibacy applied to the clergy of the institutional church.

b. Limited Source Material

The Pauline data starts with a small amount of material dispersed among different cities with different situations that create the potential for exemptions or exceptions. Still, the treatment of leadership is not dealt with explicitly, and this fact may indicate something about the nature of biblical leadership in general. Many leaders in churches of today would see the need for structure and to organize the workings and operation of an organization. If Paul started churches, as it is believed, we would expect the same order of leadership that exists today. The lack of such an essential text to provide such order suggests a need to reevaluate the nature of the called-out and leadership among them.

Using the writings of the church fathers is a common practice to complete our view of leadership. I, too, believe that using their writings is essential, but not to support the biblical view of leadership. We think it would be a mistake to appeal to the writings of the church fathers for several reasons. First, they appear after 70 AD, far removed from the last days. This late appearance is especially relevant when considering that those days marked the completion of God’s redemptive plan. The first century as a time of fulfillment was a transition period between the old Judaistic system and the better covenant enacted by Christ. Once the Messianic prophecies were fulfilled and Christ ascended at the right hand of the Father, the transition was completed and a different age had commenced. We would expect a tremendous change rather than a continuity of the old system. Herein, lies one of the most glaring problems in tying the leadership of one era to the leadership of the other. Second, Paul had warned the elders of Ephesus that after his departure, men would arise among them that would build disciples around them. The religious landscape of the second century onwards looks very much like this. People were corralled and restricted in religious activity to a ceremonial service controlled and administered by a priesthood. Third, the Lord and His apostles teach a different leadership model from the church fathers. The latter model resembles a merging of the old Jewish order of leadership with the imperial order of Rome and pagan worship.

Due to the scant resources taken just from Paul, it is valuable to compare letters written by other authors that share the same overall contexts while noting variations that may account for unique situations. Still, we observe a remarkable consistency in the early writings of the first century before 70 AD that comprises a unique body of teaching at a limited period. This distinct view of leadership is very different from the leadership taught under the church fathers.

c. Applying the Events of the Last Days

The challenge in this work describes a unique leadership position in the first century by exploring the nature of leadership within that specific period – the first century, or what the Bible calls the last days. The context of leadership during those days is marked by the coming of the Holy Spirit. Did he come then and continue to provide miraculous confirmation and revelation to this present time? Or, did he fulfill the task in the days he was promised to arrive? If the later view is a consideration, the entire Pauline corpus is cast only in the context of first-century leadership. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, such leadership was necessary among them in the early stages but was fulfilled in that era. If his work continues, we would expect to experience the same kind of miraculous power and supernatural occurrences that guaranteed the approval of the human agent and confirmed the message to be from God.

Identifying the last days period is critical in evaluating its relevance in today’s world. A standard view taken by a majority in Christianity is the premillennial view that the last days refer to the last generation before the coming of the Lord. We will see that this is consistent with the teaching of the New Testament Scriptures, and the Pauline corpus in particular. However, the debate is over which coming is in view. Is His coming a final pivotal period in which life on earth ends, or is it the coming in judgment predicted by Jesus, recorded in Matthew 24? One thing is sure; there is agreement on those days being before the coming of the Lord. The view taken in this writing is that the premillennial view of timing is misplaced. It is not a very strong argument to propose that Peter and the rest of the inspired writers were wrong about the time, as is presented by some Premillennialists. We might expect some imperfection in the personal application, as in the case of Peter and Barnabas in Galatians 2, or the failure to comprehend the nature of the kingdom before the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 1:6). Having Spiritual gifts and special revelation was no guarantee of proper application or motivation (Ex. Corinth). But, to assume that their writings of his imminent coming were mistaken is difficult to accept. Accepting it is to question the accuracy of the entire body of revelation.

Looking down through history, almost every generation has mistakenly considered itself that era of the Lord’s coming. Waldenses in the 1500s had a revival and thought that Jesus was coming soon. Martin Luther writes, I am satisfied that the last day must be before the door; for the signs predicted by Christ and the Apostles Peter and Paul have now all be fulfilled, the trees put forth, the Scriptures are green and flourishing…We certainly have nothing now to wait for but the end of all things.⁹ Still, today, we hear the common statement that the Lord is coming soon in almost any religious assembly. If the world should last another 500 years, we expect the same understanding that we are in the last days and that Jesus is coming soon. Is there any wonder Christians are the laughingstock of every humanist and atheist in the country? What proof can we offer that we live in the last days when every generation since the apostles’ days has thought that Christ is coming soon? We will explore the evidence for this claim and the nature of His coming to show that Jesus and His apostles gave signs of His return in their generation and fulfilled this promise.

The second view of the last days is the amillennial view that proposes that the day of Pentecost marks the beginning of the last days and has been ongoing ever since. In other words, when Joel said the Spirit would be poured out in the last days, he meant that the outpouring would begin in the last days but would continue, and we’ve been in it for over 2,000 years. The response to this interpretation is that Joel prophesied the outpouring would come in those days rather than interpreting the last days to begin when the Holy Spirit comes. In those days suggests while those days are present and ongoing. Besides, Peter’s use of Joel’s prophecy explains what the people witnessed on that day. Peter’s use demonstrates that the miraculous event was proof positive that the last days had come, i.e., they were in the box of time called last days. Now, suppose the last days will extend until the end of time or the Christian age (as it’s often referred to). In that case, we have a hard time explaining Daniel’s prophecy that of his kingdom, there would be no end (Daniel 2:44). Therefore, when investigating this matter, we must be searching for days that have an end. For many, the church age will end with the coming kingdom. But, this assumes that Christ’s rule is postponed during this supposed church age.

Another view and the one taken in this book is that the last days identifies the last generation of the Jewish era. John even writes of the last hour (1 John 2:18), a stronger statement of imminence. It was associated with the coming of the Lord. According to this view, the coming of the Lord was not at the end of the Christian age but the end of the Jewish Age (cf. Gal. 4:4; Heb. 1:1-2 and 1 Peter 1). This explanation fits the imminent language, the expectation of spirit-guided men, and the Lord himself. Rather than aligning the Scriptures to fit our expectations, we are faced with the challenge of changing our expectations of His coming to fit the Scriptures.

Both the second coming and the work of the Holy Spirit fit the first-century context, but each of these is extensive studies that require its own individual treatment and will only be given a chapter a piece here. We are interested in both, as they influence our survey of first-century leadership models and their relevance to our day. To set the background for the work of New Testament Christians, we will begin with the promise of the Holy Spirit and its fulfillment in the last days, a term used to refer to the end of the Mosaic era.

d. The Influence of the Holy Spirit in Leadership

Since this project is focused on the Pauline corpus, it is an integral part of this project to focus on his teaching concerning the baptism by the Spirit into one body (cf. 1 Cor. 12:12-13, Ephesians 4:4). In other words, the first century held a unique position at a specific time that required the miraculous powers of the Spirit to be imparted to Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. The debate is whether this was the beginning of a promise that continues until this present time or was explicitly tied to the last days of the Jewish regime for a specific purpose and limited time. If the former is true, do we propose having apostles and prophets today? Or do we only have evangelists, pastors/or teachers? If we only have evangelists and pastors, do the evangelists appoint the overseers as Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3 indicate? On the other hand, if the latter is true, the implication is that the first-century display of power served a unique function that is not duplicatable. If this is correct, the leadership taught by Paul would be understood in the context of the Holy Spirit’s influence at that specific time. Is it possible that the questions and problems in church organizations are caused by expecting or, in some cases, forcing the same role on people today without the gift of the Holy Spirit? I shall devote a section to the prophetic expectation and fulfillment of the Holy Spirit’s work.

In many cases, being called to preach in our society is paramount to having an urge from a strong, compelling reason or cause and interpreting that feeling as a directive from the Holy Spirit. If this is true, does this seem to be the same way people were called in those early days? If not, why the difference today? Is it possible that one is a visible proof of divine intervention while the other is an interpretive feeling?

Paul’s understanding of the body included the impartation of gifts given by the Holy Spirit to edify all. There were different administrations, but the same Spirit gave power to each one as it pleased Him (cf. 1 Cor. 12:18). If the same promise of the Spirit is extended to this present time, we should be seeing these same gifts of the Spirit today. If not, why not? Are we at liberty to apply a new hermeneutic that allows us to pick and choose what we desire to use? Of course, some propose that such power is demonstrated today, and it will be up to you to determine if these wonders are comparable.

e. Question of Consistency

Some advance the thought that shepherds are not mentioned in Colossae, Corinth, Antioch, and other cities. Paul’s letters indicate consistency in teaching among all Christians, yet they do not all look alike. Still, several factors may explain why some towns did not have them. First, failing to mention them does not mean they did not exist. They were just servants among a host of other saints that contributed to the edification of each other. They are not elevated above the rest of them. When writing the salutation in his letter to Philippi, Paul writes to the "ekklesia of Philippi with its elder and deacons (servants). When writing the letter to Ephesus, he does not mention elders living there, but such did exist in that city, as evidenced in Acts 20 when Paul calls them to meet him at Miletus. We don’t know for sure, but it is essential to recognize that failing to mention them is no evidence that they did not exist.

Second, the existence of other leaders, as was true of Antioch of Syria, would certainly explain why elders were not selected, as they were not necessary at that time. Remember, the list in Ephesians begins with Apostles and prophets, upon whom the foundation was laid (Eph. 2:20). Then, the evangelist was placed in the text between them and the shepherds (Eph. 4:11). The brethren in Antioch that Luke describes are the first large community of Gentile Christians and served as Paul’s supporters during his trips (Acts 13:1-3). The place and role of pastors, as per Ephesians 4:11, was probably not initiated at this early stage.

Third, Corinth serves as another explanation for the absence of shepherds among disciples of Christ. Corinth was not behind in any gift (1 Cor. 1:7), but the personal examples in individual lives necessary for good leadership were missing. Paul addresses their many problems. Among the issues were their division (ch. 1), carnality (ch. 3), immorality and tolerance of it (ch. 5), taking brethren to court (ch. 6), fellowshipping idols (ch. 8), questioning of Paul’s apostleship (ch. 9), failing to love one another as evidenced by their abuse of spiritual gifts and despising the poor among them when eating the Lord’s Supper (CHS. 11-14). He asks in chapter six, Is there not some wise person among you to make judgments between each other instead of going to heathen courts? We will state more than once that possessing spiritual gifts and even apostolic powers was no guarantee against personal sin and misapplication of truth (cf. Gal. 2:11). This truth would explain why Corinth might not have had elders/shepherds.

Fourth, Paul claims a uniformity of teaching. 1 Corinthians 4:14-17 reads,

I write not these things to shame you but to admonish you as my beloved children. Though ye have ten thousand in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I begat you through the gospel. I pray you, therefore, be ye imitators of me. For this cause have I sent unto you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, who shall put you in remembrance of my ways which are in Christ, even as I teach everywhere in every church.

He also writes,

But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called everyone, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches (1 Corinthians 7:17).

Paul’s teaching was consistent with what he taught everywhere in every place of called-out people (cf. 1 Cor. 11:16). Paul taught the same thing in every city where saints lived. When Paul ends the content of chapter eleven, he writes, "the rest I will set in order when I come" (1 Cor. 11:34). In The Community of Believers, I wrote, In the areas of interaction with fellow Christians, the principles of love, edification, preferring of others, giving, physical work, the practice of encouraging each other daily, and the remembrance of Christ and the fellowship of the body, in the taking of the Lord’s Supper, are some of those guiding principles.¹⁰

Finally, consider 2 Thessalonians 2:15:

So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions (paradosis) which ye were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours.

The same book expresses the harmony of thought in 2 Thessalonians 3:6-7. It reads:

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walks disorderly, and not after the tradition which they received of us. For yourselves know how ye ought to imitate us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you.

The pattern included Paul’s example of physical work. 2 Thessalonians 3:8-9 continues:

… neither did we eat bread for naught at any man’s hand, but in labor and travail, working night and day, that we might not burden any of you: not because we have not the right, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you, that ye should imitate us. (cf. Acts 20:35).

f. Examining Ephesians 4: Its Context and Broader Context of Ephesians

Further, we propose to review the letter to the Ephesians as an example of fixing the overall context of the New Testament. For instance, if Ephesians 4 has only a first-century application, it cannot be duplicated in today’s world. God gave gifts of men whom the Holy Spirit empowered to teach Heaven’s will in the last days. These men and women had different roles, but they all had a common purpose for a limited period. They were God’s plan to equip the first century Christians into one body.

We will then examine the Ephesian text, Ephesians 4:11-17, in the context of the book of Ephesians and the entire New Testament. We will then give an overview of the gifts in Ephesians 4:12 with specific emphasis on the pastors/teachers. Finally, we will propose a leadership model among God’s people today.

g. Practice and theory

Clarke has suggested that we have theory taught in the letters of Paul, but it was not always put into practice.¹¹ In this scenario, we are to understand the ideal pattern, though taught by Paul and others, was never implemented. The explanation is that imperfect human beings rarely realize a great plan. In addition, while the foundation for leadership is preserved in Paul’s writings, the cultural changes that flow through time have a church and its leadership constantly changing and evolving into its present form. The implication is that the New Testament leadership model cannot be applied in our modern culture and was never intended to be a pattern for all ages.

However, we propose that the first-century model of service and leadership by example can and should be the ongoing pattern for every generation because to change it would require an alteration of the ekklesia and its nature. The differences in the various leadership locations or the lack thereof do not indicate a failure to practice the divine theory. It only suggests that disciples had not matured and increased in wisdom, or there were no men qualified to be elders/pastors. The practices that cannot be repeated are the ones that relate directly to the events of the last days. Specifically, the Spirit-guided leaders given to the called out were not intended to be brought over from the last days. We will show that the leadership of the first century, being heavily influenced by the direct operation of the Holy Spirit, had an inherent authority that cannot be duplicated today. That there may have been other contributing factors that will be explored is undoubtedly possible, but the variations do not mean that the practice is unimportant to God.

3. Hermeneutics

One’s view and attitude toward authority will influence the interpretation of Pauline texts. For example, some depict Paul as a male chauvinist based on his teaching on headship in 1 Corinthians 11. Or, they may view his teaching about headship as a lesson on the personal accountability of the heads of households. The first headship view supports the idea that might makes right. The second recognizes not so much an order of authority as an order of responsibility, just like Fathers are ultimately responsible for their children’s training (Ephesians 6:1-2). Provoking children to wrath is an abuse of power. Bringing them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord requires the use of proper power/authority. Also, the head of the woman is the man, and Jesus uses this headship to illustrate his relationship with the redeemed (Ephesians 5). This comparative illustration was not written to justify a dictator’s rule but to emphasize the submission to one who loves, cherishes, nourishes, and sacrifices their life to serve a wife. Jesus’ example leaves no doubt as to its meaning and use. He has come to serve, not to be served (Matthew 10:28; cf. Mark 10:45). To use one’s authority as a tool for coercion, manipulation, and control is not Christlike but in no way negates his teaching on headship. Instead, it establishes his headship. This only illustrates our response to certain biblical words based on our reaction to abuses rather than the actual concepts. As a result, we may find ourselves kicking against the goads.

Of course, many other factors determine our hermeneutic. It is remarkably ignorant for people to pick up the Bible and blindly accept that it was written directly to them while believing, at the same time, that it has been written to every human being who has ever lived. How is that possible? Proper exegesis and interpretation of Scripture demand that we realize that we are reading the mail of first-century Christians. While it is true that there are timeless principles of truth that have been applicable in every generation since the first century, the prophetic events and historical occurrences had a specific time and purpose. If the application of the Bible does not have limits on time and culture, then I will hold you all equally accountable to kiss me when you greet me, advise your people not to get married, and run to the mountains when you see wars and rumors of war referenced in Matthew 24. We could write a long list of things that many are failing to do if we are to think of the Bible as a broad, timeless application for all ages. It is critical to avoid seizing a text right out of its specific context and applying it today without weighing these things.

A simple example is when someone quotes Jesus’ prayer in which he says, thy kingdom come, thy will be done, to prove that Jesus’ kingdom has not yet come today. Yet, Paul writes of the Father who delivered us out of the power of darkness and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love (Col. 1:13). He could not translate them into something that did not exist when he wrote this letter, could he? How do you make sense of these two scriptures? Is it not possible that something changed between the setting of Matthew 11 and Colossians 1:13? Could a change have occurred between the writing of the letters (and gospels) and the end of all things? Given that the Scriptures teach the imminence of His coming and the end of that present age, is it unreasonable to think that forty years (since His ascension) could account for it being fulfilled? When Jesus taught the disciples how to pray, he lived in the early thirties of the first century and had not yet died nor been raised to glory. Just because the statement was future when Jesus said it does not mean it was future for all time. When Jesus prayed this prayer, he and John were preaching, Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." It’s coming, but it’s not here yet.